I touched the soil
No title available

Jimmy Eat World
No title available
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"

if i look back, i am lost
Game of Thrones Daily
noise dept.

oozey mess
No title available
Today's Document
Cosmic Funnies

❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
Noah Kahan

Discoholic 🪩
No title available
𓃗

gracie abrams
Claire Keane
almost home
YOU ARE THE REASON
seen from Tunisia
seen from Poland
seen from Bangladesh

seen from Brazil

seen from United States
seen from Bangladesh
seen from Ecuador
seen from Bangladesh
seen from United States
seen from Spain
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Netherlands

seen from United Kingdom

seen from Norway
seen from United States

seen from United Kingdom

seen from Brazil
seen from Finland
@itsnotgoingtotranslate
I touched the soil
~ Rainer Maria Rilke (translated by Stephen Mitchell)
no eclipse glasses we are experiencing things allegory of the cave style
Card from An Almanac of Birds: 100 Divinations for Uncertain Days
I think one big reason why we don't consider the stars as important as before (not even pop-astrology anymore cares about the stars or the sky on itself, just the signs deprived of context) is because of light pollution.
For most of human history the sky looked between 1-3, 4 at most. And then all of a sudden with electrification it was gone (I'm lucky if I get 6 in my small city). The first time I saw the Milky Way fully as a kid was a spiritual experience, I was almost scared on how BRIGHT it was, it felt like someone was looking back at me. You don't get that at all with modern light pollution.
When most people talk about stargazing nowadays they think about watching about a couple of bright dots. The stars are really, really not like that. The unpolluted night sky is a festival of fireworks. There is nothing like it.
“but if i communicate it perfectly then they will understand me” WRONG 10,000 years of suffering
Emotions are not reactions to the world; they are your constructions of the world.
The fascinating science of how emotions are made.
march moodboard
"Good Old Neon" from Oblivion: Stories, David Foster Wallace
via indiarosecrawford
Frog Paints a Water Lily Pond 🪷🎨🐸
𝑓ₒᵣ ⲕᵢ𝑛𝑔 ₐ𝑛𝑑 𝑐ₒ𝑡𝑡ₐ𝑔ₑ
Tiles by Claudia Lau Studio.
Initiation Well in Sintra, Portugal
Fata Morgana
a superior mirage caused by warm air resting on patches of colder air in an atmospheric duct that acts like a refracting lens. Objects on the horizon could appear to be mirrored, distorted, or float. This form of mirage could be the reason for the Flying Dutchman Legend.
Weekend plans, Toni Frissell
Édouard Glissant, Poetics of Relation (1990)
The fact is that David Lynch treats the subject of evil better than just about anybody else making movies today—better and also differently. His movies aren’t anti-moral, but they are definitely anti-formulaic. Evil-ridden though his filmic world is, please notice that responsibility for evil never in his films devolves easily onto greedy corporations or corrupt politicians or faceless serial kooks. Lynch is not interested in the devolution of responsibility, and he’s not interested in moral judgments of characters. Rather, he’s interested in the psychic spaces in which people are capable of evil. He is interested in Darkness. And Darkness, in David Lynch’s movies, always wears more than one face. Recall, for example, how Blue Velvet’s Frank Booth is both Frank Booth and “the Well-Dressed Man.” How Eraserhead's whole postapocalyptic world of demonic conceptions and teratoid offspring and summary decapitations is evil… yet how it’s “poor” Henry Spencer who ends up a baby-killer. How in both TV’s Twin Peaks and cinema’s Fire Walk with Me, “Bob” is also Leland Palmer, how they are, “spiritually,” both two and one. The Elephant Man’s sideshow barker is evil in his exploitation of Merrick, but so too is good old kindly Dr. Treeves—and Lynch very carefully has Treeves admit this aloud. And if Wild at Heart’s coherence suffered because its myriad villains seemed fuzzy and interchangeable, it was because they were all basically the same thing, i.e. they were all in the service of the same force or spirit. Characters are not themselves evil in Lynch movies—evil wears them. This point is worth emphasizing. Lynch’s movies are not about monsters (i.e. people whose intrinsic natures are evil) but about hauntings, about evil as environment, possibility, force. This helps explain Lynch’s constant deployment of noirish lighting and eerie sound-carpets and grotesque figurants: in his movies’ world, a kind of ambient spiritual antimatter hangs just overhead. It also explains why Lynch’s villains seem not merely wicked or sick but ecstatic, transported: they are, literally, possessed. Think here of Dennis Hopper’s exultant “I’LL FUCK ANYTHING THAT MOVES” in Blue Velvet, or of the incredible scene in Wild at Heart when Diane Ladd smears her face with lipstick until it’s devil-red and then screams at herself in the mirror, or of Bob’s look of total demonic ebullience in Fire Walk with Me when Laura discovers him at her dresser going through her diary and just about dies of fright. The bad guys in Lynch movies are always exultant, orgasmic, most fully present at their evilest moments, and this in turn is because they are not only actuated by evil but literally inspired: they have yielded themselves up to a Darkness way bigger than any one person. And if these villains are, at their worst moments, riveting for both the camera and the audience, it’s not because Lynch is “endorsing” or “romanticizing” evil but because he’s diagnosing it—diagnosing it without the comfortable carapace of disapproval and with an open acknowledgment of the fact that one reason why evil is so powerful is that it’s hideously vital and robust and usually impossible to look away from.
-David Foster Wallace, "The Theme of Evil in the Films of David Lynch"